Creating Value …

… Delivering Solutions

Use of RMR to Improve Determination of

the Bearing Resistance of Rock

Scott Zang, P.E.

Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
 ASD Design
• v allowable is a presumptive
allowable bearing capacity
• Obtained from AASHTO Specs
Q • Based on a limiting settlement
only (usually ½ to 1 “)
• Shear failure of foundation
assumed to be not controlling
v max < v allowable
 LRFD Design
Service Limit State Strength Limit State
• Compute • Check sliding failure
displacements and • Check overturning (e)
compare to tolerable • Check bearing failure
displacement
Controlled for soft,
x fractured rocks
z
 Current LRFD Methodology
1. 10.6.3.5 allows flexibility in the method used
2. Many engineers use equation 10.8.3.5.4c-2
3. This is equivalent to the Nms method that was
presented in the old ASD specifications

V
qn s m s s qu

ASD qult = Nms Co

qn > V 1 + 6e
B B
Comparison of Presumptive to Nms
Method based on RMR
Distribution
of Data

Spread Footings
Drilled Shafts
 1000 RMR=50
Nms
Bearing Resistance (KSF)

Presumptive

100

WV data using
m & s method
10 (AASHTO 2006)
Presumptive
Bearing
Resistance
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
RMR
Methods for Determining Bearing Resistance
• Presumptive (AASHTO 2006 Table 10.6.2.6-1 from
NAVFAC DM-7)

7
Methods for Determining Bearing Resistance
• Empirical correlation to RQD (AASHTO ASD
4.4.8.1.1)

8
Methods for Determining Bearing Resistance
• Methods based on GSI
Methods for Determining Bearing Resistance
• Modified bearing resistance equations and bearing
capacity factors (COE EM 1110-1-2908)
Methods for Determining Bearing Resistance
• Empirical correlation of RMR to C and f (Serafim
and Pereira, 1983; Bieniawski, 1989) and General
bearing resistance equation
Cohesion C 104 RMR (in PSF)
RMR
Friction f 5
2

qn = c Ncm + Df Nqm Cwq + 0.5 B N m Cw

WINNER for
RMR less than 50
Methods for Determining Bearing Resistance
• Nms method (AASHTO ASD 4.4.8.1.2) or m & s
method (AASHTO 2006 10.8.3.5.4c-2)

WINNER for
qn s m s s qu
RMR greater
than 50
 1000 (ksf)
(KSF) Spread Footings

RMR 83, C & f,

Resistance
Resistance

100 Gen. Eq. RMR 83, m & s,

B’ = 15’ AASHTO 2006
24 WV data using
m & s method
Bearing

10 (AASHTO 2006)
Bearing

Presumptive
Approx. Upper Bearing
Design
Limit for Soil Resistance
as Soil
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
RMR
 (ksf) Drilled Shafts
KR1
Resistance(ksf)
RMR 83, C & f,
1000 KR2 PM2
Gen. Eq.
D = 5’
Resistance

RMR 83, m & s,

100 AASHTO 2006
PM1
Bearing

24 WV data using m & s

Bearing

10 method (AASHTO 2006)

Presumptive Bearing
Resistance
Design Approx. Upper Load Test Data
as Soil Limit for Soil
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
RMR 1983
 Implementation of RMR

Contract Documents Inspector Handbook

 RMR
rock mass strength

• qu
• RQD
• Spacing
• Condition
• Water
Unconfined Compression Strength
HCSI – Hardness and Compressive Strength Index
HCSI Field Test RMR
0 Indented by Thumb Nail 0
1 Crumble under firm blows with point of geological pick. 1
Can be peeled by a pocket knife.
2 Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty. Shallow 2
indentations made by firm blow of geological pick.
3 Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife. 4
Specimen can be fractured with single firm blow of
hammer end of geological pick.
4 Specimen requires more than one blow with hammer end 7
of geological pick to fracture it.
5 Specimen requires many blows of hammer end of 12
geological pick to fracture it.
6 Specimen can only be chipped with geological pick. 15
 Unconfined Compression Strength
• Uniaxial compression tests of
laboratory specimens

• Point load tests conducted in the

field or laboratory
 RMR
rock mass strength

• qu
• RQD
• Spacing
• Condition
• Water

19
 RQD
Record for each core run

For stratum thinner than core

run length - record the RQD
separately for stratum

Assign points for RQD

according to AASHTO LRFD,
Table 10.4.6.4-1
 RMR
rock mass strength

• qu
• RQD
• Spacing
• Condition
• Water
 Fracture Spacing
Estimate average fracture spacing for core run or
identified stratum (which ever is smaller)

length of identified interval

Average spacing =
number of discontinuities in
interval

Assign point value in accordance with AASHTO

LRFD Table 10.4.6.4-1
 RMR
rock mass strength

• qu
• RQD
• Spacing
• Condition
• Water
 Fracture Condition

Different sub-categories

• Discontinuity length
• Separation
• Surface roughness
• Infilling joint material
• Joint weathering
 Fracture Condition
Parameter Ratings
Discontinuity <3 3-10 10-30 30-65 >65
length (feet) 5 4 2 1 0
Separation None <0.005 0.005-0.05 0.05-0.2 >0.2
(inches) 5 4 3 1 0

Roughness Very Rough Slightly Smooth Slickensided

rough rough
5 4 2 1 0
Hard filling Soft filling
Infilling
(inches) None <0.2 >0.2 <0.2 >0.2
5 4 3 2 0
Weathering None Slightly Moderate Highly Decomposed

5 4 2 1 0
 Sub: Discontinuity Length
• Estimate based on exposed outcrops
and site geology

• Compare with adjacent boreholes

• Use default value of 2 where this

parameter is hard to estimate
 Sub: Discontinuity Separation
• Observe core in split core barrel prior to
removal
 Sub: Roughness
• Very rough : discontinuity
surface angular, amplitude 0.2”
> 0.2”
• Rough : amplitude < 0.2” 0.2”

• Slightly rough : undulating

0.2”
surface, amplitude < 0.2
• Smooth discontinuities :
planer surface

• Slickensided : discontinuity
shows visible polishing
 Sub: Infilling
• None

• Hard , thickness < 0.2”

• Hard , thickness > 0.2”

• Soft , thickness < 0.2”

• Soft , thickness > 0.2”

Hard and soft infilling as previously described

 Sub: Weathering
Term Description Points
Decomposed Original minerals decomposed to secondary 0
minerals
Original rock fabric not apparent
Material can be easily broken by hand
Highly Original minerals almost entirely decomposed to 1
Weathered secondary minerals
Although original fabric maybe intact
Material can be granulated by hand

Moderately More than half of the rock is decomposed 2

Weathered

Slightly Rock is discolored and noticeably weakened, but 4

Weathered less than half is decomposed.
Unweathered Rock shows no discoloration, loss of strength, or 5
other effect of weathering/alteration
 RMR
rock mass strength

• qu
• RQD
• Spacing
• Condition
• Water
 Ground Water
• For bearing resistance determination:
base on anticipated service conditions.
• Parameter may change from that
observed during the field investigation.
• Record all 5 components of the RMR
• Allows correction of the RMR values
based on the final design configuration
and use.
 RMR
rock mass strength

• qu
• RQD
• Spacing
• Condition
• Water
Method for Recording RMR

RMR =
10+20+10+20+10=70
 Conclusions
• The Nms method of bearing resistance
determination greatly under estimates
the bearing resistance of rocks with
RMR<50
• An alternate procedure for estimating
bearing resistance of rocks with
RMR<50 shows better correlation to past
successful practice
 Conclusions
• Use of RMR methods requires consistent
implementation of the RMR in the field
• Additional guidance On RMR
determination is helping provide more
consistent and less conservative
estimates of bearing resistance
Questions